Fuel Economy Update For February - Meets EPA Target With City-Heavy Miles - 2015 Kia Sedona SX-L

Edmunds.com

Fuel Economy Update For February - Meets EPA Target With City-Heavy Miles - 2015 Kia Sedona SX-L Long-Term Road Test

Our 2015 Kia Sedona used some fuel in February. How much?

Read the full story here

longtimelurker

Don't understand the Edmunds fixation with EPA ratings. On one hand, the Sedona is hitting its EPA estimates, but on the other hand, at 17 city/22 highway, the Sedona's EPA estimate is the worst of any minivan.

A Honda Odyssey could be averaging 20 mpg, and since its combined EPA is 22 mpg, Edmunds would complain that it's missing by 2 mpg...even though it would still be doing 2 mpg better than the Sedona for basically an almost identical vehicle.

Manufacturers post other performance estimates, too...if Ford says that their Focus ST will do the quarter-mile in 15 seconds, and it does it in 14.8, and VW says their GTI will do the quarter in 14.5 and it does it in 14.5, you don't say, hey - that Focus is overperforming...good job! You report that the GTI is faster through the quarter by .3 seconds and in that performance category, the VW wins and the Focus loses.

desmolicious

the lurker makes a very good point.

misterfusion

All they did was post that their observed city economy matches the EPA city rating, which is a relevant thing to report. It's also relevant when they mention that a vehicle is underperforming relative to its EPA estimates, because it's another data point in showing how the EPA estimates are flawed.

Finally, it would be silly of them to compare their observed economy in their own vehicle with what they "would be getting" in an Odyssey or any other vehicle. How would they, or you, or anybody else know what they would be getting in an imaginary scenario? I would hope they never use fantasy as a point of comparison...

longtimelurker

misterfusion said:

All they did was post that their observed city economy matches the EPA city rating, which is a relevant thing to report. It's also relevant when they mention that a vehicle is underperforming relative to its EPA estimates, because it's another data point in showing how the EPA estimates are flawed.

Finally, it would be silly of them to compare their observed economy in their own vehicle with what they "would be getting" in an Odyssey or any other vehicle. How would they, or you, or anybody else know what they would be getting in an imaginary scenario? I would hope they never use fantasy as a point of comparison...

Nobody is wanting them to use fantasy numbers, guy. I think you're missing the point.

Here is a real example, so you won't be concerned about fantasy numbers.

Volvo S60 and Acura TLX. Both entry-luxury sedans. Price around $46k - within $1,000 or so. Hp around 300 - within 12 of one another. Weight around 3,700 - within 100 pounds of one another. Performance within a tenth of so to 60 and in the quarter. Handling and braking, ditto. MPG around 24 - within less than 1 MPG of one another. You could cover the performance envelope of both cars with a dime.

But because the Acura was EPA rated at 21/31/25 combined, that performance was praised. The Volvo, on the other hand, was EPA rated at 24/35/28 combined. It "failed." Huh?

Yes - as you say, EPA estimates are flawed. So why is Edmunds using flawed estimates to praise one car and criticize the other, when they are performing essentially identically?

misterfusion

I guess we're talking in circles, as I see it as two unrelated comparisons. One is a comparison to another vehicle in the same class, one is a comparison with a vehicle's own EPA rating. The context is different. One is an objective statement of fact ("this car missed its EPA estimated mileage"), the other is a comparative evaluation ("this car did no worse than a competitor in the same class").

I suppose they could try to do more of the latter, but that does not make the former an invalid or useless statement.

longtimelurker

Here is my issue - in every other performance metric, the vehicles are measured, evaluated and rated by how well they perform per actual test results and compared to other, similar vehicles, not by how well they conform to the manufacturer's estimate of how they will perform.

In ONE performance metric, fuel economy, vehicles are measured, evaluated and rated by how well they conform to the manufacturer's estimate of how they will perform, rather than by how well they perform per actual test results and compared to other, similar vehicles,

When I shop for a vehicle, I want to compare the actual fuel economy of the competing vehicles, not the EPA estimates of their fuel economy. That is the comparative evaluation (which Edmunds just spent 20,000 miles performing), which I guess I prefer because I am faced with a choice of comparable vehicles, not a choice between a vehicle's actual fuel economy and the vehicle's EPA estimate. It's like Edmunds doesn't even realize the value of their LT tests...by the time I have 20k miles of actual fuel economy numbers in the can, what do I care what the EPA estimates are?